5,483
edits
Difference between revisions of "Mental Health Act: Involuntarily Admitted Patients (14:VII)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Mental Health Act: Involuntarily Admitted Patients (14:VII) (view source)
Revision as of 17:09, 22 June 2016
, 17:09, 22 June 2016→3. Through Court Proceedings
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
=== 3. Through Court Proceedings === | === 3. Through Court Proceedings === | ||
A person may apply to the Supreme Court for a writ of ''habeas corpus', which is a writ requiring a detained person to be brought before a court that will evaluate the lawfulness of the detention. This is most suitable where there were procedural defects in the patient’s admission and may be applied for as often as desired. However, note that Legal Aid is unavailable to a patient seeking to pursue this remedy, and the process may be cost-prohibitive. If the Court finds that the committing authority did not strictly adhere to the statutory requirements regarding committal, there exists an action in false imprisonment and a possible award of damages (''Ketchum v Hislop'' (1984), 54 BCL.R. 327 (S.C.)). | A person may apply to the Supreme Court for a writ of ''habeas corpus'', which is a writ requiring a detained person to be brought before a court that will evaluate the lawfulness of the detention. This is most suitable where there were procedural defects in the patient’s admission and may be applied for as often as desired. However, note that Legal Aid is unavailable to a patient seeking to pursue this remedy, and the process may be cost-prohibitive. If the Court finds that the committing authority did not strictly adhere to the statutory requirements regarding committal, there exists an action in false imprisonment and a possible award of damages (''Ketchum v Hislop'' (1984), 54 BCL.R. 327 (S.C.)). | ||
Under s 33 of the MHA a request can be made to the Supreme Court for an order prohibiting admission or directing the discharge of an individual. This request may be made by a person or patient whose application for admission to a mental health facility is made under s 20(1)(a)(ii) or s 22, a near relative of a person or patient or anyone who believes that there is not sufficient reason for the admission or detention of an individual. | |||
J.Escapes From Involuntary Detention 1.Apprehension Without a Warrant A patient, detained involuntarily in a mental health facility who leaves the facility without authorization is, within 48 hours of escape, liable to apprehension, notwithstanding that there has been no warrant issued (s 41). 2.Warrant Constituting Authority for Apprehension Where a person involuntarily detained has been absent from a mental health facility without authorization, the director of the facility may within 60 days issue a warrant for apprehension, which serves as authority for apprehension and conveyance back to the facility (s 41(1)). 3.Patient Considered Discharged After 60 Days A patient is deemed to have been discharged if he or she has been absent for over 60 days without a warrant being issued (s 41(3)). However, if the patient is “charged with an offence or liable to imprisonment or considered by the director to be dangerous to him or herself or others,” the person is not deemed discharged and a warrant may still be issued. 4.Aiding Escapees Under the MHA, s 17 any person who helps an individual leave or attempt to leave a mental health facility without proper authority, or who does or omits to do any act that assists a person in so leaving or attempting to leave, or who incites or counsels a patient to leave without proper authority, commits an offence under theOffence Act, RSBC 1996, c 338. | |||
